Link: Bring back dueling, quit whining

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/19/bring-back-dueling/

Words are only as meaningful as the actions to back them up.

If you compare someone to Hitler on Twitter, and you say you’d go back in time to kill Hitler (presumably before he did the job himself), how are you going to act on that?

This would silence the SJWs over night.

This would silence all the cowards who social signal (including some supposed redpills) in lieu of doing something. Who finger point and blame game. “It’s your fault my life sucks, I’m a victim, but you can’t hit me because… I’m a victim!” If they want to be a victim, I am happy to provide that service. They forget the true meaning of the word.

If you had to defend and guard honour like that, imagine how quickly the r-types would skedaddle.

After all, isn’t the very concept of being ‘offended’ and indeed, ‘offensive‘, directly tied to honour culture? If you choose to be offensive, you choose to defend that speech offensively.

How would your reputation look, based on your lexicon of actions?

It would be nice to see social signalling return to positive values, as was the case for the majority of history. Etiquette is a series of everyday social signals, after all. I think we all miss those small signs of regard.

Video: Anti-SJW sentiment rising, college censorship backlash

Yeah, they are.
They are laughing at that.

Excellent, outgroup the extreme r-types.

If you’re not on Twitter, or Tumblr, or the very liberal Universities, EVERYONE is laughing. Because everyone is tired of this shit.

Among probable (real) liberals even.
We need to redpill them hard on what their ‘fellows’ are actually doing.

It’s not that it’s annoying or funny, although it is funny because this shit is …just insane.
It’s DANGEROUS.

He unknowingly references the anti-logic Standpoint Theory at the end of the clip.

German library indulges Nazi book burnings (anything which doesn’t fit the political Narrative)

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/german-library-burns-books-that-arent-politically-correct_082015

Most people like to believe that the West is some grand refuge of freedom and liberal democracy, and that any of the terrible things we’ve done, are all in the past. This belief especially applies to issues like censorship. The public tends to think that restricting free speech is something that prudish or narrow-minded conservatives did during the McCarthy era, or perhaps they’re reminded of the book burnings of Nazi Germany. However, censorship is still alive and well today, it just goes by a different name: Political Correctness.

snort lol laugh haha hmph derision yeah duh really uhuh mhmm princess bride

Kurt Nimmo of Infowars.com recently reported on a translated German article, which suggests that a German library in culling insensitive books.

More than 3,000 books from a municipal library in the German town of Bad Durrheim were destroyed after they were judged to be politically incorrect.

According to Roland Tichy, chairman of the Ludwig-Erhard-Foundation and the former editor of the business news magazine Wirtschaftswoche, the purge focused on author Erich Kästner and others who used “incorrect” words such as “Negro” and “Gypsy.”

Kästner is the author of a number of popular books, including “The Flying Classroom,” “Pünktchen und Anton,” and ”Lottie and Lisa.”

He received the international Hans Christian Andersen Medal in 1960 for his autobiography “Als ich ein kleiner Junge war.” He was also elected President of the PEN Center of West Germany.

According to Tichy, Kästner’s “books have landed on the funeral pyre of the infamous book burnings of the Nazis, who plundered the intellectual writings Germany to prevent any form of one’s own thinking.”

So not only were Kästner’s works burned by the Nazi’s, they were burned again because of words that were written in a time period that wasn’t as sensitive as ours. They’re basically punishing dead authors for unwittingly offending future readers.

But don’t think that this sort of thing won’t happen in America. Political correctness is already worming its way into our literature. Just a few years ago, a professor tried to publish a new edition of Huckleberry Finn, with all of the colorful language removed. More recently, horror author Anne Rice made light of the PC trends in the book world today.

“I think we are facing a new era of censorship, in the name of political correctness. There are forces at work in the book world that want to control fiction writing in terms of who “has a right” to write about what. Some even advocate the out and out censorship of older works using words we now deem wholly unacceptable. Some are critical of novels involving rape. Some argue that white novelists have no right to write about people of color; and Christians should not write novels involving Jews or topics involving Jews. I think all this is dangerous.”

Let White people only write about and for White people, please.
These people are so stupid, they can’t see the consequences of their own ideologies.

Of course, censorship may not come in the form of burning books at all, since political correctness has already taken its toll on public discourse in America. Between the privilege checking and the trigger warnings, we’re raising an entire generation of adults who can’t handle any idea that challenges their world view.

Dissent makes you evil. Heathen! Blasphemy! Burn the witch!

So America’s future won’t be teaming with book pyres for as far as the eye can see. Instead, books that are worth burning won’t be written in the first place, because nobody will even know what it means to be controversial.

applause clap clapping yes well done

From the link;

The Nazi Roots of Political Correctness

According to Christopher Monckton, modern political correctness began in Nazi Germany.

“The first thing they did was to go round saying there was only one acceptable point of view. That was where Political Correctness really first was invented, as you were not allowed to have a point of view other than that of the Nazi Party,” Monckton told James Delingpole in 2014.

The Human Right to Offend

http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/27/the-right-to-offend

Self-censorship in the face of intimidation has another name: cowardice.

rdj claps applause mhmm

No human right is more important than free speech. Without it no other rights can be asserted and defended. Free speech—the right of anyone to criticize and evaluate the claims of anyone else—is the best environment for discovering political, social, economic, and scientific truths. Political, religious, and ideological absolutists cannot tolerate criticism that punctures and wounds their delusions and dogmas. They look for ways to shut the offensive speakers up, including murder….

It’s anti-science. It’s Papacy over Galileo. You are The Man.

The truth is rarely popular and seldom denied ere long it is spoken.

Logical rudeness in debates

When your opponent isn’t using logic? Or reality? Or objectivity?

http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/rudeness.htm

(Logical rudeness)…Unlike a petitio, it does not purport to justify a conclusion or belief; it purports to justify believers in disregarding criticism of their beliefs as if such criticism were inapplicable, irrelevant, or symptomatic of error. This is not self-justification in the manner of a petitio, in which assumed premises can validly imply the disputed conclusion.

Sum: If somebody isn’t playing by the rules of formal debate, they bring the whole thing down and might be excluded.

…”Philosophers have no equivalent of default except the presumption that the silent or rude theorist has no answer on the merits to offer, and (qua individual proponent) may be presumed ignorant or incorrect and dismissed. This presumption, however, is very legalistic, and in many cases will be false.”…

Practice of Law =/= ” ” Science

It may seem that the imputation of a foible or fault to a critic simply qua critic is always optional, never necessary to preserve the consistency of the theory or the good faith of the proponent. But this is not true. First, there is the case of the brazen theory which includes as a tenet the forthright equation of disagreement and error. This tenet is not as rare, nor probably as naive, as one might at first suspect. It may be called (using legal jargon) the “exclusivity clause” of the theory. Any theory may have an exclusivity clause, and most theories may have them without contradicting their own content. The “clause” merely states that the set of tenets comprising the theory is the truth and the only truth on its precise subject. It does not imply completeness; but it does imply that propositions inconsistent with the theory are false. It may be tacit and understood, and indeed it does seem to follow from the mere claim of truth according to the principle of excluded middle (tacit in many theories) and most classical notions of truth. If a theory contains an exclusivity clause, even a tacit one, it impels the good faith proponent to equate disagreement and error. Critics may courteously be indulged in the realm of debate, and cajoled into seeing the light, if possible, but that would be supererogatory under the canons of logic and good faith. One premise of “civilized” debate —that any contender might be speaking the truth and debate is one way to tell who— is not shared by all the contenders. For this reason it is disturbing to note that almost any claim to truth may bear a tacit exclusivity clause.

If you are being purely logical and the other person comes up with a personal story, you can, in most instances, rightfully call them an idiot for using that as a parry to your point. It’s like bringing a spoon to a knife fight.

Even more disturbing is the case of philosophical systems. The paradigm of good philosophy for several western traditions —the complete, consistent system— is impelled to be rude….

If the system is supposed to be complete as well as true, then the good faith proponent must believe the critic in error, and therefore must apply the system’s explanation of error to her. Note that mere belief in the completeness and truth of the system suffices here to justify the conclusion that disagreement is error. The good faith proponent need not immediately act on this belief in the critic’s error, but neither can he escape concluding it, any more than he could willingly suspend judgment on the truth of his beliefs. Proponents of what are supposed to be true, complete, consistent systems must choose between apostasy and rudeness. [DS: rude people tell the truth] They must defend their beliefs either by appeal to premises and principles from outside the system, which they believe are false, or by appeal to premises and principles from withing the system, which is question-begging and liable to be very rude. [demonstration of depth of explanation] This may be called the dilemma of systematic self-defense. To ask such a believer to be logically polite “just for the sake of argument” is equivalent to asking him to give up some tenets of the faith he wishes to defend just to enter a realm of debate to defend it. This is why systems with pretensions to completeness have traditionally seemed rude, have traditionally authorized rude defenses in their proponents, or have gone undefended at fundamental levels….

…Logical rudeness may be considered a complex form of ad hominem argument. It tells critics and dissenters that they are defective human beings whose ignorance or error is well explained as frailty, fault, foible, or the absence of a boon. Moreover, this form of ad hominem is justified by the theory under attack. When our questions are answered by ad hominem assaults, we are angered. Our anger cannot be reduced to hurt feelings because we were not merely wounded in our dignity; we were put off in our inquiries for truth by a refusal to cooperate. A rude response can therefore trigger three levels of indignation: personal affront, thwarted cooperation, and crippled inquiry. The first is personal, the second social and political, and the third epistemic.

..Some form of rudeness seems inevitable. Either the equality principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are unequally entitled to know the truth, [as if equally capable of understanding, psychometrics be damned] or the freedom principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are making impermissible moves in a game. These two fundamental types of rudeness can be barred only by one another. To secure some courtesies, then, we must impose other rude principles. There is something Gödelian about this result. No system of logical etiquette can be both complete and consistent. For every such system there will be a permissible but rude theory. ….

…..The automatic inference of falsehood from rudeness or undebatability may be called the fallacy of petulance —in which we peevishly allow our hurt feelings to supersede our better judgement. The fallacy of petulance is to use the criteria of courtesy as criteria (or as a subset of the criteria) of truth. Sociability in debate may be important for many reasons, even for the fundamental epistemic reason of keeping debate a fruitful avenue of inquiry and for basic ethical duties to other inquirers; but its norms do not thereby become criteria of truth. ……

….The danger of legislating a style of thinking in order to secure a form of cooperation is real.  ….

Trigger warnings, anyone?